Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 380 (KAR)

Ramesh v. State Of Karnataka

2020-02-10

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has sought for regular bail under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Crime No.151/2019 of Kalaburagi Rural Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as IPC). 2. The charge sheet allegation against the present petitioner is that since the deceased Sidharoodh refused to pay back the alleged loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- alleged to have been borrowed by him from the accused, the said accused between 11.00 p.m. on 22.05.2019 and 12.00 noon on 23.05.2019 assaulted the deceased with a metallic salike (an iron plate like instrument with wooden handle to it used by the construction worker and garden maintenance for pooling the mud, soil, etc.) and caused his murder. While leaving the place he took with him the cell phone of the deceased, his motor cycle and in order to destroy the evidence, he threw the metallic salike in the overhead tank of the house where the deceased was residing and thus has committed the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, in his argument, submitted that the alleged recovery of the motor cycle was three months after the incident, however, no explanation is placed by the prosecution as to how come the said motor cycle which was said to have been parked in a railway station parking area was not noticed by anyone. He further submitted that the alleged weapon used for the commission of the crime, since was said to have been put in the water tank where it is said to have remained nearly three months, then there cannot be any blood stain upon it. Further stating that the accused is in judicial custody since 02.08.2019 and since the charge sheet has already been filed, there is no necessity for continuation of the accused in judicial custody, the counsel prays for his enlargement on bail. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader, who has filed his statement of objections, stated that there are two eyewitnesses i.e., CW-12 and CW-13 to the alleged incident who have clearly stated before the Investigating Officer that they have seen the accused assaulting the deceased and causing his murder. Further, the recoveries of the weapon and the valuables belonging to the deceased was also made at the instance of the accused. Further, the recoveries of the weapon and the valuables belonging to the deceased was also made at the instance of the accused. For these reasons, the accused in this heinous offence, does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. The complainant is the son of the deceased, who after coming to know about the death of his father over the telephonic information, has lodged the complaint against unknown person, as such, originally the complaint was as against an unknown person. During the course of the investigation, the police are said to have recorded the statements of CW-12 and CW-13 who claims to have seen the alleged incident. However, their alleged statement is nearly three months after the alleged incident. In such a situation, whether they were truly the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, is a point that may have to be looked into by the trial Court during the course of the trial. However, the prosecutions contention is also that the incriminating materials, more particularly, the weapon said to have been used for the commission of crime and a motor cycle and cell phone said to be belonging to the deceased were recovered at the instance of the accused. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged recovery of the motor cycle is suspicious for the reason that it has been recovered from a public parking place at railway station where it was said to have remained unnoticed for three months, but the prosecution contention is that the said recovery was made at the instance of the accused and none else. Therefore, why the said motor cycle has remained unnoticed for three months in the said place would also be a factor which may have to be considered by the trial Court, but at this stage, suffice it to say that the alleged recovery of the motor cycle was said to be at the instance of the accused. 6. The alleged recovery of the metallic salike was also said to be at the instance of the accused. According to the prosecution, the said instrument was said to be in the house of the deceased himself which the accused is said to have noticed and taken to cause the alleged act when the deceased was said to have refused to pay back the loan amount taken by him from the accused. According to the prosecution, the said instrument was said to be in the house of the deceased himself which the accused is said to have noticed and taken to cause the alleged act when the deceased was said to have refused to pay back the loan amount taken by him from the accused. The said instrument was said to have been thrown by the accused in the water tank of the house of the deceased after committing the alleged offence. According to the prosecution, it is with the said instrument, the accused has assaulted on the head of the deceased causing bleeding injuries upon his head, due to which he died. The copy of the FSL report produced along with the charge sheet, at this stage, would go to show that the laboratory has noticed the presence of B+ group bloodstain on it. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused vehemently submits that when the weapon was said to be in water tank for three months, such a blood stain cannot remain on the metallic surface of the instrument. Though the said doubt may have to be addressed by the trial Court, but at this stage, suffice it to say that the Forensic Science Laboratory has noticed the presence of the human blood of B+ group on the said metallic instrument as well on other articles tested by it including lungi, baniyan and underwear of the deceased. 7. Apart from the above, one more aspect which the prosecution claims in its favour and which cannot be ignored at this stage is the alleged recovery of the cell phone of the deceased which was also said to be recovered at the instance of the accused/petitioner. When the said cell phone which is said to be belonging to the deceased was recovered from the possession of the accused and at his instance and when the prosecution says that call detail records show that to the said cell phone the accused had made calls on the said day, I am of the view that the alleged recovery of the cell phone also may play an important role in the trial. As such, when three important incriminating materials are said to have been recovered at the instance of the accused and when CW-12 and CW-13 claims to be eyewitnesses to the incident, I am of the view that considering the heinous nature of the offence, even though the charge sheet has been filed, the petitioner/accused does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.